Method and structure for determining thermal cycle reliability

ABSTRACT

A device and method for evaluating reliability of a semiconductor chip structure built by a manufacturing process includes a test structure built in accordance with a manufacturing process. The test structure is thermal cycled and the yield of the test structure is measured. The reliability of the semiconductor chip structure built by the manufacturing process is evaluated based on the yield performance before the thermal cycling.

RELATED APPLICATION INFORMATION

This application is a Divisional application of allowed U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 10/783,462 filed on Feb. 20, 2004, pending.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to semiconductor processing, and moreparticularly to a system and method for addressing thermal mismatchbetween organic dielectrics and metals.

2. Description of the Related Art

Reliability under thermal cycle conditions is one of the main concernswhen integrating Back End of Line (BEOL) structures with low dielectricconstant dielectrics. The cause of thermal cycle fails is typically themismatch in the coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) between themetallization and the surrounding insulator. For example, the CTE ofcopper (Cu) is approximately 16 ppm/° C. while that of SILK (trademarkof Dow Chemical) is approximately 60 ppm/° C. As a result, the Cumetallization is strained during thermal cycle testing, which can leadto crack formation in Cu vias and eventual failure. While the thermalcycle performance of a given process can be evaluated by stressingspecifically designed test structures, such as stacked via chains, thiscan only be done on a limited sampling of parts and only on completebuilds of the structure.

It would be highly desirable to have a method for determining thethermal cycle performance provided by a manufacturing process.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A device and method for evaluating reliability of a semiconductor chipstructure built by a manufacturing process includes a test structurebuilt in accordance with a manufacturing process. The test structure isthermal cycled and the yield of the test structure is measured. Thereliability of the semiconductor chip structure built by themanufacturing process is evaluated based on the yield performance beforethe thermal cycling.

These and other objects, features and advantages of the presentinvention will become apparent from the following detailed descriptionof illustrative embodiments thereof, which is to be read in connectionwith the accompanying drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

The invention will be described in detail in the following descriptionof preferred embodiments with reference to the following figureswherein:

FIG. 1 is a schematic cross-sectional view of a test structure inaccordance with one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a lognormal cumulative distribution function (CDF) plot ofcumulative percent of thermal cycles versus cycles to failure for anillustrative liner process (phase A);

FIG. 3 is the plot of FIG. 2 with bimodal and linear fits for thecurves;

FIG. 4 is a lognormal CDF plot of cumulative percent of thermal cyclesversus cycles to failure for an illustrative liner process (phase B)showing bimodal and linear fits;

FIG. 5 is a log-log plot of reliability yield (%) versus yield (%) forphase A data showing a relationship therebetween in accordance with thepresent invention;

FIG. 6 is a log-log plot of reliability yield (%) versus yield (%) forphase A and phase B data showing a relationship therebetween inaccordance with the present invention;

FIG. 7 is a layout view for a portion of an illustrative 50-link chaincomprising stacked vias (into the page) employed as a test structure forone embodiment of the present invention;

FIGS. 8A and 8B show a layout and schematic, respectively, for a stackedvia chain having uniform via strain;

FIG. 9 is a layout of a wrapped via chain having uniform strain andmultiple taps along the chain in accordance with one embodiment of thepresent invention; and

FIG. 10 is a flow diagram of an illustrative method for predictingreliability of a semiconductor device structure based on the teststructure in accordance with the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The present invention provides a system and method for applying a yieldparameter to determine thermal cycling failures. The present inventionidentifies, for example, the yield of Dual Damascene interconnects as aparameter that directly correlates with the thermal cycle reliability ofvia stacks during thermal cycling. In addition, these via chains aretypically designed without regard to the layout surrounding the actualstructures. It is to be noted that a Dual Damascene process is acommonly used technique for fabricating metal interconnects.

Since the thermal strain in a via is directly affected by the materialsurrounding the via, the probability of failure in such conventionalstructures may vary across the via chain. This makes reliabilityassessments for actual product layouts nearly impossible. In addition,if the metal fill surrounding the test structure is relatively high,then it is unlikely to obtain a significant number of failures during athermal cycle stress. This prevents determining of statistical behaviorof thermal cycle failures and making projections for operatingconditions.

The present invention further provides several illustrative stacked viadesigns that avoid these problems and thus can be used for evaluatingthe thermal cycle performance provided by a manufacturing process.

In one embodiment, the yield of Dual Damascene interconnects is used asa measure of the thermal cycle performance. This can be used to controlthe thermal cycle behavior of BEOL structures. Data shows that the yieldprovides a sensitive way to determine when process conditions falloutside a window that assures thermal cycle reliability during themanufacture of BEOL structures.

In another embodiment, designs of stacked via chains are employed toaccurately assess the thermal cycle performance of a given process.Since the thermal strain of any via in the chain is dependent on theprecise geometric layout (e.g., distance between via stacks, location ofthe chain relative to the bond pads, etc.), it may be important todesign the structure such that there is a uniform value of strain acrossall of the vias in the chain. The uniform via strain ensures that eachvia has approximately the same probability of failure. This may beaccomplished by including dummy vias, which are not electricallyconnected to the actual test structure, in the design of the stacked viachain. These dummy vias may be located near the end of the chain andessentially share the stress with the electrically active vias.

In addition, certain designs are more susceptible to thermal cyclefailure (e.g., structures without via fill), and thus would be useful ingenerating a sufficient number of failures for modeling purposes. Sinceisolated vias are more susceptible to thermal cycle failure compared tonested vias, it is necessary to isolate the vias from regions of densemetal features. In this case, it may also be important that the distancebetween the structure and bond pads is sufficiently large since bondpads represent areas of high metal fill density.

Referring now in detail to the figures in which like numerals representthe same or similar elements and initially to FIG. 1, a schematic crosssection of a structure 10 used for thermal cycle study in accordancewith one embodiment of the present invention is shown. The teststructure 10 (also referred to as a “stacked via chain”) is employed toverify the stability of, e.g., SiLK™/Cu BEOL structures during thermalcycling. It should be noted that other metals and dielectric materialsmay be employed in addition to or instead of the SiLK™/Cu materialsillustratively described herein. For example dielectrics such as SiCOH,nitrides, silicon dioxide or other organic or inorganic dielectrics maybe employed.

The structure 10 includes a stacked via chain 12, where two SiLK™ levels14 (e.g., levels M2/V1, and M1/CA) are followed by two silicon dioxide(SiO₂) levels 16. The chain 12 may include, e.g., 50 links, alternatingbetween layer MC, which may include a tungsten (W) local interconnect18, and M2. Other numbers of links and configurations are alsocontemplated.

Structure 10 preferably includes a dual damascene structure to providestress risers at the interface between vias 22 (CA and V1) and adjacentmetal. Other structures that can fail due to thermal induced strain mayalso be employed.

M1 may include a square plate 20. In one example, plate 20 measuresabout 0.35 μm on a side while CA and V1 measure about 0.22 μm indiameter.

Thermal cycle failure is a result of metal fatigue, a phenomenondescribed by crack formation and growth due to cyclic strain. Duringthermal cycle testing, layers 14 (e.g., SiLK™) expand and contractsignificantly, generating large stresses in vias 22 (e.g., CA and V1).The resulting via strain is enhanced by the mechanical confinement ofthe rigid SiO₂ layers above (16) and below (24) the metallization.Layers 24 in this case being formed on a substrate 8, which may include,for example, a silicon or silicon-on-insulator material. Eventually,cracks are initiated in regions 26 and propagate across the vias 22(e.g., formed from Cu), causing a resistance increase if the cracksreach a critical size. An electrical open occurs if the crackscompromise liner integrity for liners 27 formed on sides and bottoms ofvias 22.

In one embodiment, the structure 10 includes aluminum (Al), copper (Cu),Gold (Au), silver (Ag), or alloys thereof as metal and, the dielectricmay include an organic material, such as SiLK™ or polyimide. A linermaterial 27 may include tantalum (Ta), tantalum nitride (TaN), titanium(Ti), titanium nitride (TiN) or tungsten (W). The liner material isdeposited prior to filling via holes with metal. The mismatch in CTEbetween the metal and insulator is preferably greater than about 20ppm/° C.

Method for Evaluating the Thermal Cycle Performance

By comparing two different processes, e.g., Phase A and Phase B, a oneto one correspondence between the yield of the structure and therelative number of early fails that occurred during thermal cycletesting was discovered by the inventors. Phase A and Phase B processesmay include any fabrication process. In the present example, theseprocesses include liner deposition processes.

Referring to FIG. 2 for the Phase A process, a lognormal cumulativedistribution function (CDF) plot in terms of the cycles to failure fordifferent temperature ranges from the phase A hardware is shown. If onefailure mode is present, thermal cycle data is described by thetwo-parameter lognormal distribution. In this case, the parameters arethe median cycles to failure, N₅₀, and the shape of the distribution,sigma. It is clear from FIG. 2 that most of the stress cells havemultiple failure distributions. Specifically, the failure distributionsare comprised of two failure modes, referred to as early and latefailures. For example, in the case of the −65° C. to +150° C. stresscell, the early fails occur before 400 cycles while the late fails occurafter 400 cycles.

To accurately describe this type of failure data, it is necessary to usea bimodal lognormal failure distribution. Such a distribution includes,e.g., 5 parameters, including separate N₅₀ and sigma values for theearly and late failures as well as a parameter corresponding to thefraction of samples in the total population that are early fails.

Referring to FIG. 3, a lognormal CDF plot for the same data shown inFIG. 2, along with the corresponding bimodal fits is illustrativelyshown. FIG. 3 shows good agreement between the bimodal fits and theactual failure data for each of the stress cells described previouslywith reference to FIG. 2. Only early fails occur for the 0° C. to +150°C. stress cell at the time the experiment was completed, so a linear fitbased on the two-parameter lognormal distribution is indicated for thisdata.

Referring to FIG. 4, a lognormal CDF plot in terms of the cycles tofailure for different temperature ranges from the phase B hardware isillustratively shown. FIG. 4 shows good agreement between the bimodalfits and the actual failure data. Note that only late failures occur forthe −105° C. to +150° C. stress cell, so a linear fit based on thetwo-parameter lognormal distribution is indicated for this data.

Reliability projections based on the early failures are clearly moreimportant than those based on the late failures. Since thermal cycleexperiments are time consuming, it is desirable to have a means ofpredicting the relative number of early fails that will occur at normaloperating conditions. Various BEOL processes, such as SiLK™ cure, linerdegas and oxide deposition, subject wafers to temperature cycles. Theseprocesses may introduce defects into the test structures, whererelatively large defects will affect the test structure yield andrelatively small defects will affect the test structure reliabilityduring thermal cycle stress.

The early fails that occur during stress are probably caused byreliability defects in the test structure. The yield of a test structuredue to random defects follows Poisson statistics Y=Y₀e^(−L/Ay), where Yis the fraction of samples with no yield defects, Y₀ is the yield fornonrandom defects, L is the defect density and Ay is yield critical areafor the structure, which is a mathematically-derived quantity for theprobability that a defect will cause a yield failure.

If the same mechanisms responsible for yield defects are alsoresponsible for reliability defects in the test structure, then arelation can be constructed for the reliability R=R₀e^(−L/Ar) where R isthe fraction of samples with no reliability defects, R₀ is thereliability for nonrandom defects and Ar is the reliability criticalarea for the structure. Therefore, the following relationship existsbetween yield and reliability R=(R₀/Y₀)y^(k), where k=Ar/Ay is the ratioof the critical areas for reliability and yield.

If the nonrandom terms are equal (e.g., Y₀=R₀=1), then R=Y^(k). If acorrelation exists between yield and reliability, then the samemechanisms are responsible for yield defects as well as reliabilitydefects for the structure. If this is true, then reducing the processyield defects would reduce the reliability defects. To verify thevalidity of this model, a log-log plot of R versus Y should give alinear relationship. This is illustrated in FIG. 5. It should be notedthat the relationship between yield and reliability is further describedin “Reliability Defect Detection and Screening during Processing—Theoryand Implementation”, HANCE H. HUSTON and C. PATRICK CLARKE, IEEE/IRPS,January 1992, pp. 268-275.

Referring to FIG. 5, good agreement exists between the model, given bythe solid line, and the actual data for the phase A hardware. Here, Yrefers to the yield of structure 10 (FIG. 1), and R refers to the defectreliability of structure 10 (FIG. 1). Clearly, a larger fraction ofsamples with no yield defects corresponds to a larger fraction ofsamples with no reliability defects. Presumably, a sample with noreliability defects will not exhibit early fails during thermal cycletesting. In comparing the different processes, the phase A hardwareproduces a larger fraction of early fails compared to the phase Bhardware. This result correlates with the fraction of samples with yielddefects, as illustrated by the log-log plot of R versus Y in FIG. 6.

Referring to FIG. 6, the difference between the phase A and phase Bprocesses is probably caused by variation in liner thickness. The ideais that samples with a thicker liner are less likely to have defects,and thus are less susceptible to early failures during thermal cyclestressing. The liner may be thought of as sharing the stress in thestacked via structure with the metal, such as, Cu. The liner materialshave a higher bulk modulus and a higher yield stress than Cu. Therefore,a thicker liner means there is more structural support in the stackedvia structure. Although there may be other factors that affect thedefect reliability (grain size, via dimensions, etc.), the linerthickness is the most likely source of the differences, particularlysince the phase B hardware was designed to have a thicker liner than thephase A hardware.

Based on this data, the present invention includes using the yield tomonitor the thermal cycle reliability of chips during the manufacturingprocess. This includes measuring the yield of a simple kerf structureduring the manufacture of the BEOL structure of the chip. Thecorrelation between yield and reliability, such as that shown in FIGS. 5and 6, would have already been generated for the process by usingstandard thermal cycle tests. The yield of the structure could then beused as a direct indicator of thermal cycle performance expected fromthe process.

Structure for Evaluating the Thermal Cycle Performance

Referring to FIG. 7, an illustrative layout 100 of a stacked via chain101 used in an illustrative test structure is shown indicating thedistance to a bond pad 102 as well as distances between vias 104 in thechain 101. The dimensions shown in FIG. 7 are for illustration purposesonly. Other dimensions may also be employed. The effect of M1 on thermalcycle performance can be determined if designs with different M1 sizesare made available.

Referring to FIG. 8A, an extension of the structure 10 for stacked viamacros with uniform via strain is illustratively shown. Dummy stackedvias 202 are not electrically connected to structure 204 which includesa test structure (e.g., see FIG. 1) and can reduce variation in strainat corners or end vias. By providing dummy structure 202 end effects orincreased strain caused by thermal expansion mismatch between metal anddielectric (e.g., Cu and SiLK™) is reduced and made mode uniform withinchain 204.

To increase the number of stacked vias per macro, the structure 204 canbe lengthened or wrapped using, e.g., sections 206 in a serpentinemanner (sections are separated by a sufficiently large distance). Thesedummy or wrapped structures may be employed to increase or reduce strainfor particular designs and may provide uniformity for via chains used tomeasure yield and therefore reliability in accordance with the presentinvention.

Referring to FIG. 8B, a cross-sectional view of chain 204 isillustratively shown as a 6-level structure. Vias 208, 210 and 212 inthis embodiment are arranged such that the smallest via sizes exist inthe lowest level of metallization (closest to the devices) and increasewith increasing levels of metallization. This practice leads tonon-uniform strain in the vias. Thus, note the difference in size frombottom potions to top portions of the column. In addition, the size ofthe vias is affected by the material in which the vias are embedded.Vias 208 (in SiLK™ 14) are smaller in size than vias 210 (in silicondioxide 16), and via 212 (in silicon dioxide 24) is the smallest insize. However, because via 212 is deposited in silicon dioxide, it willnot be subject to the large strain caused by the thermal expansion ofthe SiLK™ dielectric. In this configuration, the lowest of the vias(208) in SiLK™, which correspondingly possesses the smallestcross-sectional area, will be the via that possesses the largest strainand hence will be the most likely location for cracking.

The geometry of the structure (e.g., vias, interfaces between vias andmetal lines, etc.) may be designed to provide uniform strain at ahighest level to induce failures or a change in performancecharacteristics of the structures. For uniform strain designs, strainvalues may be maintained within ±5% of a target or maximum value.

Referring to FIG. 9, a wrapped stacked via chain 300 which may includee.g., 1000 stacked vias 303 and four sections 301 is illustrativelyshown in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.Multiple taps 302 run from a specific number of vias along the chains.For example, the number of vias tapped may be, for example, 50, 250,500, 750 and 1000. The number of taps depends on the number of availablebond pads 304. The taps 302 are employed to provide contact points fordetermining failures or to make resistivity or other electricalmeasurements of the chain. Dummy stacked vias are not electricallyconnected to structure 300 which includes a test structure (e.g., seeFIG. 1) and can reduce variation in strain at corners or end vias. Byproviding dummy structure end effects or increased strain caused bythermal expansion mismatch between metal and dielectric (e.g., Cu andSiLK™) is reduced and made mode uniform within chain 300.

If the design has bond pads 304 adjacent to a macro 300, it would beadvantageous to separate the macro from the bond pads 304 by a certaindistance (e.g., 40 microns or greater) due to thermal expansion effectsfrom the Cu bond pads. Depending on the number of levels of metal aswell as the actual via sizes, it is possible to design many differenttypes of stacked via chains that all maintain uniform via strain andallow for the testing of multiple vias. Stacked via strain modeling maybe implemented in accordance with, for example, but not limited to, theteachings of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10,726,140, entitled“Building Metal Pillars in a Chip Structure Support”, filed on Dec. 2,2003, assigned to the assignee herein, and incorporated by referenceherein in its entirety.

Sections or lines 301 in the design may have uniform strain throughoutstacked via chains in that section or line. Strain is preferablydesigned into the part by employing geometric relationships of vias,thickness of liner and dielectric layer, spacing between vias, materialproperties, etc.

In one embodiment, distances between the structure 300 and the bond pads(or regions of high metal fill density) is such that the reduction inthermal strain of any via is preferably less than 5% compared to themaximum value of thermal strain that exists between the metallizationand insulator for a completely isolated via. Multiple sections of viasmay be electrically connected and separated by a sufficient distance (>7μm) to reduce the thermal expansion effects caused by adjacent vias

The distance between the sections 301 may be such that the reduction inthermal strain of any section is less than 5% compared to the maximumvalue of thermal strain that exists between the metallization andinsulator for a completely isolated section of vias.

Analytical modeling of the mechanical behavior of this wrapped stackedvia chain, with dimensions corresponding roughly to FIG. 1 and thosedepicted in FIG. 8, indicates that the value of strain in the vias isapproximately 80% of that produced by the thermal mismatch between say,Cu and SiLK™. The value of via strain is dependent on several factors,including total SiLK™ thickness and thickness of the overlying oxidepassivation cap as well as the aforementioned metal fill fraction andvia spacing. The value of via strain can be tailored within alternatestacked via chain designs by adjusting any one of these parameters. Forexample, to increase the probability of via failure, one can create avia chain design in which the vias are exposed to the maximum strain.

For a 6-level SiLK™ build with the cross-section depicted in FIG. 8,each of the vias may be positioned 7 microns apart along the chain. If aserpentine chain is employed, the adjacent sections should also be atleast 7 microns apart to ensure the maximum via strain of approximately97% of the Cu/SiLK thermal mismatch.

In one embodiment, it would be preferred to maintain the strain valueswithin a 5% tolerance of a maximum strain value. Maximum strain may bearbitrarily defined or may use a reference within the test structure.For example, a single isolated via would include the most strain and thevalue thereof may be used as this maximum. Other strain configurationsare also contemplated.

Although the results discussed previously apply to Cu metallization anda SiLK™ dielectric, the same methods can be applied to othercombinations of materials. A mismatch in CTE should exist between themetallization and surrounding insulator and the liner material shouldhave a higher modulus compared to the metal.

Referring to FIG. 10, by creating test structures in accordance with thepresent invention, thermal cycling responses on an entire chip designcan be achieved. For example, a chip layout may be designed and mimickedby forming a test structure s using the same manufacturing processcontemplated for the design in block 502. The design may be incorporatedinto existing chip designs or by a separate manufacture.

In block 504, via chains are preferably formed to maximize stress/strainin the vias to cause a measurable failure or change in electricalcharacteristics after thermal cycling tests. Alternately, strain valuesmay be made uniform throughout a design or varied by increasing ordecreasing the frequency of via chains along a length of the chip. Thenumber, size, pattern and materials of the vias and their surroundingmay be varied to provide predetermined strain in each structure.

In one embodiment, the metal is preferably patterned using a DualDamascene process with conductive liners along the bottoms and sidewallsof the vias, where a dielectric material surrounds the metal, and wherea mismatch in the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) exists betweenthe metallization and surrounding insulator.

In block 506, thermal cycling is performed on the test structure or chipto achieve early failures or changes in electrical characteristics. Ayield parameter is determined. The yield or the relative number ofelectrically functional structures following chip fabrication is used todetermine the thermal cycle reliability of the structure at a givenstress condition.

In block 508, the results of the thermal cycle tests are analyzed togain a general understanding of the reliability achievable for aparticular design. The yield or yields of various structures can beemployed to evaluate the reliability of given structures in a design.The thermal cycle reliability refers to the relative number ofstructures that do not exhibit early fails during thermal cycle testing.

Thermal cycle failure is less of an issue for materials with CTErelatively matched, for example, aluminum (Al) metallization with SiO₂as the dielectric. Here, the mismatch in CTE between the metallizationand the dielectric is not large enough to cause failure.

Only recently have chip performance requirements led to the use of Cumetallization and organic low-k dielectric materials, where the mismatchin CTE is quite large. Therefore, the yield on the thermal cyclereliability for properly designed test structures in accordance with thepresent invention is employed to reject chip designs, portions ofdesigns or provide a strong indicator of overall reliability of a chipdesign or manufacturing process.

Having described preferred embodiments of a method and structure fordetermining thermal cycle reliability (which are intended to beillustrative and not limiting), it is noted that modifications andvariations can be made by persons skilled in the art in light of theabove teachings. It is therefore to be understood that changes may bemade in the particular embodiments of the invention disclosed which arewithin the scope and spirit of the invention as outlined by the appendedclaims. Having thus described the invention with the details andparticularity required by the patent laws, what is claimed and desiredprotected by Letters Patent is set forth in the appended claims.

1. A test structure used to determine reliability performance,comprising: a patterned metallization structure having a plurality ofinterfaces, which provide stress risers; a dielectric materialsurrounding the metallization structure, where a mismatch incoefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) between the metallizationstructure and the surrounding dielectric material exist such that athermal strain value is provided to cause failures under given stressconditions as a result of CTE mismatch to provide a yield indicative ofreliability for a manufacturing design.
 2. The structure as recited inclaim 1, wherein the same strain value is across all vias in the teststructure.
 3. The structure as recited in claim 1, wherein the patternedmetallization structure includes a dual damascene structure.
 4. Thestructure as recited in claim 1, further comprising conductive linersalong bottoms and sidewalls of vias in the dual damascene structure. 5.The structure as recited in claim 4, wherein the liners include one oftantalum (Ta), tantalum nitride (TaN), titanium (Ti), titanium nitride(TiN) and tungsten (W).
 6. The structure as recited in claim 1, whereinthe metallization structure includes one of aluminum (Al), copper (Cu),Gold (Au), silver (Ag) and alloys thereof.
 7. The structure as recitedin claim 1, wherein the dielectric material includes an organicmaterial.
 8. The structure as recited in claim 1, wherein the dielectricmaterial includes one of SiLK (trademark of Dow Chemical), polyamide,SiCOH, a nitride and an oxide.
 9. The structure as recited in claim 1,wherein the mismatch in CTE between the metallization structure and thedielectric material is greater than about 20 ppm/° C.
 10. The structureas recited in claim 1, wherein the metallization structure includes astacked via chain having at least two levels of interconnects and vias.11. The structure as recited in claim 1, further comprising dummystructures not electrically connected to the metallization structure andplaced near ends of the test structure to reduce the variation inthermal strain at corner or end vias.
 12. The structure as recited inclaim 1, wherein the metallization structure is separated from metalpads by a distance to reduce thermal expansion effects caused by themetal pads.
 13. The structure as recited in claim 12, wherein thedistance between the metallization structure and the bond pads is suchthat a reduction in thermal strain of any via is within 5% of a maximumvalue of thermal strain that exists between the metallization structureand the dielectric material for a completely isolated via.
 14. Thestructure as recited in claim 1, wherein the metallization structurefurther comprises multiple sections electrically connected and separatedby a distance to reduce thermal expansion effects caused by adjacentvias.
 15. The structure as recited in claim 14, wherein the distancebetween the sections is such that a reduction in thermal strain of anysection is within 5% of a maximum value of thermal strain that existsbetween the metallization structure and the dielectric material for acompletely isolated section of vias.
 16. A test structure used todetermine reliability performance, comprising: a patterned metallizationstructure having a plurality of interfaces, which provide stress risers;a dielectric material surrounding the metallization structure, where amismatch in coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) between themetallization structure and the surrounding dielectric material existsuch that a thermal strain value is provided to cause failures undergiven stress conditions as a result of CTE mismatch to provide a yieldindicative of reliability for a manufacturing design; the test structureincluding at least one of: a via chain formed through layers of the teststructure such that a plurality of widths of vias are used to adjuststrain in different layers, and a dummy structure configured to providea via density in an area of the test structure to adjust strain inadjacent structures of the test structure.
 17. The structure as recitedin claim 16, wherein the same strain value is employed across all viasin the test structure.
 18. The structure as recited in claim 16, whereinthe mismatch in CTE between the metallization structure and thedielectric material is greater than about 20 ppm/° C.
 19. The structureas recited in claim 16, wherein the dummy structures are notelectrically connected to the metallization structure and are placednear ends of the test structure to reduce the variation in thermalstrain at corner or end vias.
 20. The structure as recited in claim 16,wherein the metallization structure further comprises multiple sectionselectrically connected and separated by a distance to reduce thermalexpansion effects caused by adjacent vias.